book, and there s an edition based on a recent hearing in north carolina about case. so that is going to be added to the mix. so i guess the answer is, yes, i m sorry. right. well, i m glad to hear that. although i think the first edition of it really says everything there is that i can think of to say. basically, you have police have a choice. they can either look for an intruder, which is a lot of work, or they could look at the one surviving fam lu member family member, indict him and convict him which is a much easier choice. i think in this, we see this in the iowa map da knox amanda knox case, we see this in the sam shepard case. there s a tendency i don t know if you agree but to basically take the person closest to the crime which requires the least imagination. i would put it slightly differently. i think often there s a tendency to take that explanation which involves the least amount of thought. and up an explanation that sets in early on and persists d
one of the best things that ever happened to me was receiving your book on jeffrey mcdonald to review from the wall street journal. it opened my eyes to how counternarcotics have a taxonomy, how you can follow them from case to case. i don t know if you are still pursuing that case. see i am pursuing it in the sense that my publishers have asked me to do another edition of the book, so i am rewriting parts of the book and then there is an edition based on a recent hearing in north carolina. about the case, so that has been added to the mix. so i guess the answer is yes, i m sorry. i m glad to hear that. although i think your first edition of it really says everything there is that i can think of to say. they sit way you have, the police have a choice. they can either look for an intruder which is a lot of work or they can look at the one surviving family member, indyk him and convict him which is a much easier choice. i think we see this in the amanda knox case. we se